[ocdtrekkie]

My understanding is that this case has produced emails inside Google about essentially how to avoid licensing Java. In the light of the incredible profit machine Google is, and how large a monopoly Android is, its hard to imagine any judge looking favorably on a plan to avoid paying licensing for something to build a multi-billion dollar industry.

That being said, I feel ruling against Oracle would be also very perilous for open software from for profit entities, as it would have a harmful chilling effect on companies trying to dual license or keep their technology open. Arguments Google had made in earlier stages used the GPL-licensed OpenJDK to justify using their non-GPL implementation.

[danShumway]

I don't get this perspective. The Open Source movement relies on adversarial operability far more than for-profit entities do.

Would WINE be legal if Oracle won? Would Oracle's OpenOffice be able to read and save Microsoft document formats? Replicating APIs has always been a huge part of the Open Source movement.

[gpm]

The Wine case is particularly amusing, because WSL (v1) would be equally infringing in the exact opposite direction.

[Spivak]

Assuming that the court rules in the way I would want then 100% yes.

WINE would be fair use because it’s purpose is to allow programs written for Windows to run on Linux.

Google’s use of the Java API would be infringement because Google’s use of the API is to provide a familiar environment for Java developers and it was easier to borrow the Java API than design a new one.

[wtallis]

By that logic, would WINE be fair use while winelib is infringement?

[marcoseliziario]

Wanting to avoid paying licenses by doing your own implementation is perfectly legal and moral. Let's say we lived in a world where there were no Open Source RDBMS, and you didn't want to pay Oracle's license. There would nothing shady on you deciding to develop your own RDBMS.

[Spivak]

Ignoring patents for a second you’re absolutely right. Where it gets hazy is if you copied Oracle’s query language because it was easier than designing your own.

To me the intention matters. If you copied it so that you could market that you work with existing software then I think you ought to be fine. If you copied it because designing a query language is hard then probably not.

[perl4ever]

But how could the reason be anything other than both of those things at the same time?

[monocasa]

The FSF has been very vocally for APIs to not be copyrightable. They've filed amicus briefs to that effect.

Edit: also why do those emails matter? The facts of the case aren't dependent on them. There's nothing wrong with a company looking to build a semi interoperable replacement to avoid license fees. That's why sun bought and continued development on OpenOffice; they figured out that was cheaper than the MS Office fees at their scale.

[lostmsu]

It is kinda interesting, that if Oracle wins this, then Google, and specifically Android will effectively become GPL-infringers.

[alok-g]

I believe there's more. Oracle had specific clauses in the licence terms to prevent usage of JVM on mobile. In other words, Google actually releasing Android under GPL is not enough for the case to be finished off.

[jgmjgm]

I'm really not sure about why this comment has been down-voted besides that people disagree with it. This comment and the one above that was heavily down-voted both inspired some relatively interesting responses. It's a shame because the HN that I used to appreciate had more tolerance for civil disagreements. (Maybe this is just a reddit norm leaking here.) So it goes.

[akersten]

You're seeing folks with a certain persuasion downvoted because frankly, there is a right answer here, and it's astounding that people would undermine their own profession.

If Oracle wins, software engineering will be seriously hampered. And that's not hyperbole. If you are on Oracle's side you directly jeopardize the livelihoods of most of the contributors of this board. So not only am I not surprised by the downvotes, I think they're appropriate.

[ocdtrekkie]

That is actually the very definition of hyperbole. No, software engineering isn't going to be seriously hampered because Google has to pay for what they knew they stole.

Some terms about API use would likely change in some software agreements. Google would fess up about 8 billion dollars. And not much else would happen.

Software engineering is a vital part of the world and the economy and it will not go away because the law got enforced.

[musicale]

Well I suppose an Oracle victory could be good news for AT&T if they own the copyright to the standard C library and the UNIX/POSIX API.

Then they could demand licenses for any C toolchain as well as any piece of code (libc, Linux) that included libc/UNIX compatible declarations.

This could be highly beneficial to software engineering since it would discourage the use of languages like C and Java, as well as UNIX-like systems. ;-)

[wtallis]

Specious arguments that provoke well-informed corrections may be better than obvious trolling, but overall they're still not beneficial to the level of discourse here.